While Krikorian and the current staff of CIS may not be avowed nativists, it’s harder to look favorably on John Tanton, the doctor and conservationist who founded CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, and the Social Contract Press — an entire network of organizations dedicated to the fight against immigration. Tanton has also openly favored eugenics, and is on record for harboring explicitly nativist views.
According to Krikorian, Tanton hasn't been involved with CIS for decades. But Tanton was reportedly a close friend of Cordelia Scaife May, and that friendship lives on through the Colcom Foundation. All told, Colcom’s top beneficiaries include every one of Tanton’s anti-immigration groups, including FAIR (over $18 million), NumbersUSA (over $17 million), Tanton’s Social Contract Press (over $10 million), and CIS (over $8 million). It’s hard to avoid the impression that Colcom singlehandedly keeps Tanton’s network going.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the Constitution?
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the Constitution?
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the Constitution?
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the Constitution?
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
I knew you missed slavery. Called it
Sure you did. Great way to hide your support for the lowest common denominator in 2019 “america.” Sanctuary states are the law of the land.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the Constitution?
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
What does the constitution say about it?
In my non legal scholar opinion, the Constitution is silent on whether abortion should be legal or not. But we also have the 14th Amendment which basically says on the really important issues of the day, the law has to be consistent throughout the land. State's rights are not absolute, nor should they be.
Fair enough. But I go back to what I said yesterday: the entire nation ought to come to some consensus on whether a fetus has agency, or personhood, and if it does, when it acquires it. Because if there is ever a time when it doesn't have that status, that state - no state - should be able to intrude. If it always has that status - from the moment it is conceived - then there should be a national ban on abortion at all times and under every single circumstance.
How do you propose this consensus would be established?
It's a tough one.
I'd say, consult the Tug?
But if that fails, or doesn't appease the masses, then the Supremes need to find it in the Constitution. Of course it's not there ... a lot of things aren't there. I guess that leaves us with Congress.
But with Congress it should be. It should be the law of the land, either way, I don't care. I can live with either answer. What I can't live with, or at least what I found intellectually lazy and crazy, is that the answer varies by state or region. We tried that with slavery and came to the conclusion that the Union isn't a union if you can hold slaves in some places and not others. Some things are so very fundamental that, if we can't agree on them, we ought not to be associated at all.
That's my take.
Leave it to the states?
Leave it to the Constitution?
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
I knew you missed slavery. Called it
Sure you did. Great way to hide your support for the lowest common denominator in 2019 “america.” Sanctuary states are the law of the land.
They aren't but that's ok facts were never your strong suit Governor Wallace
If there were an actual constitutional right to privacy spelled out then a lot of the shit we have going today would not be allowed. We actually have law that says there is no right to privacy nor the expectation thereof
So we balance security versus privacy and privacy loses
Could your bank report deposits to the government if we had a right to privacy?
If there were an actual constitutional right to privacy spelled out then a lot of the shit we have going today would not be allowed. We actually have law that says there is no right to privacy nor the expectation thereof
So we balance security versus privacy and privacy loses
Could your bank report deposits to the government if we had a right to privacy?
Exactly. The right to privacy thing has always been FS. The consideration should be is there compelling reason for the state to intervene or not.
Comments
According to Krikorian, Tanton hasn't been involved with CIS for decades. But Tanton was reportedly a close friend of Cordelia Scaife May, and that friendship lives on through the Colcom Foundation. All told, Colcom’s top beneficiaries include every one of Tanton’s anti-immigration groups, including FAIR (over $18 million), NumbersUSA (over $17 million), Tanton’s Social Contract Press (over $10 million), and CIS (over $8 million). It’s hard to avoid the impression that Colcom singlehandedly keeps Tanton’s network going.
https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2017/4/21/center-for-immigration-studies-funders
I provided stats you provided opinion
Do you really give a fuck what white trash alabama and Georgia elect to do?
Sanctuary states are the law of the land.
So we balance security versus privacy and privacy loses
Could your bank report deposits to the government if we had a right to privacy?